Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves scope for historic-preservation ordinance; Mills Act language separated

City of Orange City Council · November 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved a not-to-exceed scope with Chaddell Inc. to draft a historic-preservation ordinance but elected to remove or separate Mills Act program specifics and recuse conflicted members for later action.

The City of Orange authorized a not-to-exceed scope of work with Chaddell Incorporated on Nov. 12 to prepare a historic-preservation ordinance and related code updates, but council members asked that any Mills Act program specifics be separated from the immediate ordinance drafting and considered later.

Council Member Barrios and others said they expected a written update from the working group on the Mills Act and asked that language tied to Mills Act incentives or program refinements be removed or handled separately because the Mayor and Council Member Barrios indicated potential conflicts of interest. City staff said the scope presented was a scope of work only — not specific ordinance text — and that inclusion of a Mills Act reference in the scope was procedural (the city already has a Mills Act program but no documented municipal code provisions) and could be addressed later.

Council voted to approve the scope as presented, with the understanding that staff would remove or separately agendize any Mills Act program-specific content and that affected members would recuse from votes where necessary. Staff said the not-to-exceed figure reflected additional outreach requested since an earlier, lower estimate and that the contract would allow incorporation of existing work where appropriate.

The council approved the item by recorded vote (6 yes, 1 absent). The council also asked staff to provide an update after an initial review and to bring any benchmarked timeline back for review on June 9, 2026, for status reporting and further council direction.